THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.1614 OF 2017
JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice N.V.Shravan Kumar)
Heard Mr. Madanlal Vijay Kumar, party-in-person as appellant and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for the respondents No.2 to 4 and perused the material made available on record.
2. This intra Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who is the writ petitioner in W.P. No.35113 of 2015, against the order dated 11.07.2017 passed in W.P.No.35113 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge.
3. The case of the appellant/petitioner, in brief, is that the appellant/petitioner initially filed W.P. No.12429 of 2007 challenging the Proceedings No.G2/2023/2007, dated 25.05.2007 issued by the 1st respondent therein proposing to acquire the property of the appellant/petitioner without following due process of law and consequently sought to set aside the proceedings dated 25.05.2007. The learned Single Judge had allowed the said writ petition on 02.01.2014 by setting aside the Proceedings No.G2/ 2023/2007, dated 25.05.2007 and the appellant/petitioner was permitted to file his objections before the respondent authorities 2 HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and after filing the objections within the time stipulated, the respondents were directed to issue notice to the appellant/ petitioner fixing the date of enquiry and proceed in accordance with law.
4. Thereafter, the appellant/petitioner also filed W.P. No.27982 of 2014 questioning the notification issued on 24.05.2007 under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 and the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 19.09.2014 leaving it open to the appellant/petitioner to agitate his grievance as and when orders are passed by the competent authority and the Land Acquisition Officer. Assailing the same, the appellant/petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A. No.1413 of 2014 and the same was closed as infructuous.
5. Subsequently, the respondents authorities have proceeded with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and thereafter issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act afresh on 17.10.2014 and subsequently passed an award on 05.02.2015. Aggrieved by the said award dated 05.02.2015, the appellant/petitioner filed W.P. No.35113 of 2015 challenging the entire proceedings including the award passed by the respondent No.4, vide File No.A/94/2007, dated 05.02.2015, stating that the entire proceedings starting from 3 HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017 notification under Section 4(1) of 1894 Act, which culminated in the award dated 05.02.2015 are void and have lapsed. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
6. The appellant/petitioner in writ petition contended that respondent authorities did not pass the award within two years from the notification dated 24.05.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and as such, the impugned award cannot be sustained. He would further contend that in view of the provisions of Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20132 (herein called 'Act 30 of 2013') entire proceedings have lapsed. It is further contended that in fact, no fresh assessment as per Section 4 to 8 of Act 30 of 2013 was carried out and the provisions of Sections 11 to 15, 19 and 20 of the Act 30 of 2013 were not followed and no revision of market rate was undertaken as envisaged under Section 26 of Act 30 of 2013. Further, the respondents did not correctly fix the compensation amount as per the Act 30 of 2013.
7. Apart from the above, the appellant/petitioner filed his written submissions in two parts. In Part-I, appellant/petitioner submitted that declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 17.10.2014 afresh pursuant to the order of this Court passed in W.P. No.12429 of 2007 on 02.01.2014. It is submitted that the 4 HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017 learned Single Judge has failed to observe that the old Act was lapsed on 31.12.2013 two days earlier to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.12429 of 2007 i.e., on 02.01.2014 and the new Act has come into effect from 01.01.2014 one day before the said order. Hence, the respondents have to follow Sections 8 to 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 30 of 2013. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion from the wrong statement made in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents that the compensation is determined as per Section 24 read with Section 27 of the Act 30 of 2013. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred to see that the Collector has not at all taken any steps to revise and update the market value of the land on the basis of prevalent market rate, which is mandatory under Section 26 of the Act 30 of 2013.
8. In the Part-II of the written submissions, the appellant/ petitioner contends that the compensation award is very meagre and prays to direct the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority where the case of the appellant/petitioner is pending under Section 64, which is numbered as LAOP. No. 37 of 2019 for fair market value and compensate the appellant/petitioner as per the prevalent market rate as mandated in Section 26 of the 5 HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017 Land Acquisition Act 30 of 2013 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
CONTENTIONS OF THE REPSONDENTS:
9. On a perusal of writ-affidavit material papers, the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), GHMC, Hyderabad filed counter in W.P. No.35113 of 2015 stating that earlier appellant/ petitioner filed W.P. No.31998 of 2014, challenging the 5-A enquiry orders of the Collector, R.R. District wherein a counter was filed. Further, the appellant/petitioner's brothers also filed W.P. No.4985 of 2015 challenging the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act, published on 17.10.2014.
10. In the counter in W.P. No.35113 of 2015 it is submitted that the W.P. No.12429 of 2007 was filed by the appellant/petitioner and the same was allowed by this Court on 02.01.2014. In pursuance to the order dated 02.01.2014, the 5-A enquiry notices have been issued to the appellant/petitioner on 31.05.2014, 24.06.2014 and 21.07.2014 and after receiving the objections and upon personal hearing of the appellant/petitioner, the remarks of the Assistant City Planner, were obtained and 5-A enquiry notices were finalized and subsequent proceedings were issued by the Collector, Ranga Reddy district holding that it is not possible to revert back by issuing fresh 4(1) notification and action would be taken to issue 6 HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017 Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and accordingly, the draft declaration was published on 17.10.2014. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities have issued an award enquiry notices under Section 9(1) & 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in response to the notices, the appellant/petitioner attended the award enquiry and raised objections to stall the award enquiry proceedings in view of his W.P. No.31998 of 2014 pending before this Court and the respondent authorities have proceeded with the award enquiry and award was passed on 15.02.2015 as there was no stay orders to stall the award enquiry proceedings. It is further submitted that in the award enquiry proceedings, the brothers of the appellant/petitioner have raised rival claims and as such, the compensation amount was deposited in the City Civil Court, for apportionment and adjudication. Subsequently, Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar, has invoked the provisions of Section 91 of the Land Acquisition Act, 30 of 2013 and the appellant/petitioner's property was taken into possession for execution of road widening works.
11. It is further submitted that though two writ petitions were pending and no stay orders were granted by this Court and after disposing of the 5-A objections by the District Collector, R.R. District, the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land 7 HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017 Acquisition Act has been published on 17.10.2014. It is further submitted that in view of the stay orders granted in W.P. No.12429 of 2007, the acquisition proceedings could not be taken up and that the said W.P. No.12429 of 2007 vide order dated 02.01.2014 was allowed and the draft declaration dated 25.05.2007 was set aside and directed the appellant/petitioner to file objections and accordingly the Collector disposed of the objections and ordered to proceed further by issuing draft declaration as such, there was no lapse of draft declaration in view of the stay order dated 02.01.2014.
12. It is further submitted that this Court has not set aside the 4(1) notification dated 24.05.2007 and therefore, after disposing of the objections of the appellant/petitioner, the District Collector published the draft declaration and the appellant/petitioner attended the award enquiry and requested to stall the award proceedings. It is further submitted that since no stay orders were granted by this Court, award proceedings were concluded on 15.02.2015 as per Section 24(1) (A) read with Section 27 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013). It is further submitted that during award proceedings, the appellant/petitioner and his brothers raised rival claims over the acquired property as such compensation was deposited in the 8 HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017 Court for adjudication. Therefore, the appellant/petitioner has remedy under Section 64 of the New (Act 30 of 2013) for enhancement of compensation. Finally, it is submitted that though the acquisition proceedings have been initiated prior to the commencement of 2013 Act, however, as per provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, since the award has not been made under the 1984 Act, the respondent authorities followed 2013 Act for the purpose of computation of compensation and that in the present case, Section 24 of the 2013 Act has been followed for the purpose of computation only.
SUBMISSIONS:
13. However, on behalf of the respondents, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appeared and while reiterating the submissions earlier made by the learned Advocate General in the writ petition, inter alia, submitted that there was neither illegality nor there exists any procedural infirmity in the impugned proceedings as the respondents meticulously and scrupulously adhered to Section 24 of the Act of 2013 and followed all the mandatory requirements of law. Further, the issues raised in writ petition were not maintainable for any judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the appellant/petitioner that the entire proceedings have lapsed in view 9 HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017 of the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 is not correct and not sustainable in the eye of law. Further, if the appellant/petitioner has any grievance with regard to the quantum of compensation, it is always open for him to approach the authorities under the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013. Eventually, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the case of the appellant/petitioner and passed the impugned order and therefore, no interference of this Court is required.
ANALYSIS:
14. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is noticed that the learned Single Judge has framed the two issues that "whether the subject proceedings have lapsed? Whether the petitioner herein is entitled for any damages as claimed" for consideration.
15. So far as the issue No.1 is concerned, the learned Single Judge has observed that "Section 11-A of the Act mandates passing of award within two years from the date of Section 6 declaration. In the instant case, Section 6 declaration was issued on 17.10.2014 afresh pursuant to the orders of this Court in WP No.12429 of 2007, dated 02.01.2014. Thereafter, on 05.02.2015, the 4th respondent passed the impugned Award. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the proceedings in the instant case are not vitiated." 10
HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017
16. Insofar as the issue No.2 is concerned, the learned Single Judge has observed that "Since this Court does not find any procedural infirmity and illegality in the iimpugned action, the petitioner herein is not entitled for any relief under this head under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration the submissions made in the counter affidavit that only the compound wall and open space are getting affected, but not the heritage structure and the distance between the compound wall and the heritage structure is 75 feet and that the compensation is determined as per Section 24 read with Section 27 of Act 30 of 2013 and in view of the rival claims the amount is deposited in the civil Court. After taking into consideration the all above rival submissions, the learned Single Judge has held that "The other contention as regards the quantum of compensation fixed by the respondents, in the considered opinion of this Court, can be agitated by the petitioner herein in an appropriate forum available under Act 30 of 2013 for enhancement of compensation i.e., for re-determination of the quantum of compensation and the petitioner is given two months time from the date of receipt of this order to avail the said remedy before the appropriate authority." Accordingly, the learned 11 HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017 Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on 11.07.2017 with the above observations.
18. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order in W.P. No.35113 of 2015 has opined that as regards the contention of compensation fixed by the respondents, the appellant/petitioner can agitate in an appropriate forum available under the Act Section 30 of 2013 for enhancement of compensation i.e. re-determination of the quantum of compensation and the appellant/petitioner was given two months time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order to avail the said remedy before the appropriate authority. CONCLUSION:
19. Since the appellant/petitioner in terms of the order passed in W.P. No.35113 of 2015 has already availed the remedy before the appellate authority in LAOP. No.37 of 2019 filed under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 pending before the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority and that the appellant/petitioner prayed to direct the authority to dispose of the case in a time bound period and considering the age of the appellant/petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority to expedite the appellant/petitioner's case in LAOP. No.37 of 2019 as early as possible. The respondent authorities are directed to communicate 12 HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017 the order of this Court to the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARRA) within a period of (1) one week from the date of this order and thereafter the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARRA) is directed to dispose of the appellant/petitioner's case in LAOP. No.37 of 2019 within a period of four months thereafter.
20. Accordingly, this writ appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
___________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
___________________________
N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J
Date: 20-10-2023
LSK